Well, Jerome translated from the Aramaic version, so which ever agrees with the Vulgate we might expect to be more representative of the original Aramaic. Indeed, the Greek versions differ significantly from the Aramaic of which the Vulagte Tobit is a translation (see his Prologue to Tobit).
The Vulgate reads (Tobit 1:1-2):
1 Tobías ex tribu et civitáte Nephtháli (quæ est in superióribus Galilǽæ supra Naásson, post viam quæ ducit ad occidéntem, in sinístro habens civitátem Sephet) 2 cum captus esset in diébus Salmanásar regis Assyriórum, in captivitáte tamen pósitus, viam veritátis non deséruit,
That is (DRB):
Tobias of the tribe and city of Nephtali, (which is in the upper parts of Galilee above Naasson, beyond the way that leadeth to the west, having on the right hand the city of Sephet,) 2 When he was made captive in the days of Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, even in his captivity, forsook not the way of truth,
In my estimation, the Greek versions appear to be later Greek translations (traditions unto themselves in some ways) with accumulated information known about Tobit, but not strictly original to the work, but which was in any case inserted into the book over the decades and centuries. I of course speak of the 'extra' (humor the question-begging) geneological information.
According to the introduction/textual information for the NETS translation for Tobit, the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) follows/is a translation of the Greek version found in Sinaiticus [Gk II] (as distinct from the Vulgate of Jerome, which took from an Aramaic version available to Jerome in his day—he mentions nothing of the Greek versions, or we can safely guess, in Jerome style, he viewed them as corruptions of the original; which indeed they appear to be).
Clearly, we have no insight into whether the Aramaic version Jerome had in his day was an Aramaic tradition identical or close to the original Tobit as written by its original author. Except we do have Jerome's fierce textual perfectionism and 'Hebrew truth' frame of mind. That he would accept any old Aramaic version without somehow falsifying its originality by consulting the Hebrews themselves is more than just doubtful.
As such, there is no definitive way to know which textual tradition is closer to the original Tobit because we lack the original, and several traditions are more or less equally valid candidates either in part or as a general whole.
If one were to ask my opinion, I'd say it's safe to assume that Jerome selecting this Aramaic version over and against ones with more or less agreed with the Greek versions, such as even some found at Qumran which represent a partial agreement in some respects, with both Greek versions, and assumed this was therefore more likely to be the original, it being in Aramaic, but evidently not a translation of a Greek (i.e. it was clearly an Aramaic original, of which the Semitisms throughout are clear evidence).
Without access to the original, it's hard to side with their, since the geneologies are uncorroborated elsewhere, and are unfalsifiable.
P.S. I recognize the incomplete, inadequate, and inconclusive nature of my answer: this is just my input at the moment—my two cents.